Effect of the conditional suspension of the outstanding farmland

Even if a sales contract for the farmland in arrears is fully paid and later the farmland is handed over to the buyer, it will be considered as a sale under the condition that the completion of repayment is suspended.

Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da603 Delivered on November 22, 1962, Supreme Court Decision 63Da141 Delivered on August 22, 1963

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na337, 338 decided December 3, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant and the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

There is no error in violation of the rules of evidence in the court below's finding that the repayment arrangement for the distributed farmland takes effect when it is paid to the bank designated in the jurisdiction, and whether or not it is paid to the bank designated in the jurisdiction, and the time is not affected by the payer. According to the records, there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence in the court below's finding that the court below paid the redemption arrangement conversion price for the land of this case to October 27, 1962 by evidence, and there is no error in the rules of evidence in finding that the court below paid the redemption arrangement to the receiving bank in 12.19 (the original decision that the original decision was 11.27) of the same year in terms of the evidence No. 13.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the records and reasoning of the judgment of the court below at the time of the original adjudication, the farmland in this case was originally distributed by the deceased non-party 1, and the defendant purchased and sold the farmland in this case, which is a distributed farmland in the 12.18 Sin-si, 1959 Sin-si, 1959, out of the repayment fees, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff completely pays the conversion price of the unredeemed grain in 1962.27, and the plaintiff was delivered with the plaintiff under the name of the plaintiff pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Ownership of Distributed Farmland in force at the time of November 27 of the same year, and the fact that the plaintiff was delivered by the lawsuit after the expiration of 1965, and the unredeemed amount of the unredeemed farmland in this case was fully paid and delivered to the buyer after the conclusion of the sales contract for the unredeemed farmland in this case, and there is no error of law between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, 1963.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

According to the facts established by the court below, since the defendant received a distribution of the farmland in this case and purchased it from the deceased non-party 1 and cultivated it with the delivery of the objection, this is a judgment of the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Da603, Nov. 22, 1962) that the contract for sales of the farmland in this case should be null and void as it violates Article 16 of the Farmland Reform Act, and therefore, the decision of the court below ordering the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant is justified.

The appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-won Mab-Ba